Replies to This Discussion

Disarming people? How? How do you take guns away from "nutcases" without disarming non-nutcases. Maybe we need a national sanity test everyone has to take whether they want to buy a gun or not. Surely that would be even more useful. We can cull out all the nutcases and eliminate a lot of other problems all in one fell swoop. No more homicidal gun nuts, no more hoarders or obsessive hand washers.

Our world will be a better place, right?

Was the shooter's mom a "nutcase." Should some cops at some point have shown up on her doorstep to tell her, "You're a nutcase. Give us your guns."

I'm not a gun proponent by any stretch of the imagination. Don't have one; don't want one. I just laugh at the measures anti-gun people (a) think will work and (b) imagine are possible.

If your question is how having an armed security guard not cut down on the death toll, we have evidence of its lack of effectiveness. It may have the potential to cut it down, but Columbine had an armed security officer, and VA Tech had a police force. There are real life examples of the effectiveness of the idea.

On the other hand America being as unique as it is when compared to other countries in regards to its gun use/tradition/obsession/Consitituional Right, what we have no evidence of is, is whether a real consistant and significant effort a gun control will work or not. So shouldn't that be attempted before we dismiss it as not effective?

Regardless of its political likelihood argument, NRA lobbying efforts, bought and paid for Congressmen, etc., if we are discussing the theoretical should it be attempts before its dismissed?

Thus back to my earlier point. Complex problems often require multifaceted approaches, and as you state a bit of patience for the effect to be realized.

I never said take the idea off the table, just that it alone would never be enough to significantly impact the problem. It's an all of the above solution.

For every example that one can offer of the effectiveness of an armed guard someone else can argue an example of its ineffectiveness. If it works out to be fifty-fifty, its is not statistical different than not having them there at all, but certainly important to the individual families whose children were spared in that specific example.

For every example that one can offer of the effectiveness of an armed guard someone else can argue an example of its ineffectiveness. If it works out to be fifty-fifty, its is not statistical different than not having them there at all, but certainly important to the individual families whose children were spared in that specific example.

It doesn't work out to fifty-fifty if one side's arguments are illogical, contrary to common sense, and contrary to fact. It only works out to fifty-fifty in an atmosphere of "all arguments are equally good."

Arguments against providing armed responders in schools generally assume something stupid (that the armed responders need to be rent-a-cops, uniformed police, etc.) Many counter arguments illogically point to the relatively few cases where armed response has gone horribly wrong. Some even seem to argue that if your response can't save every child, it's not worth even trying, or that the possibility of a "friendly fire" incident in which the responder injures or kills a child by mistake makes the response a failure even if that was the price to save several.

The arguments propounded by gun opponents are often just as wacky as the ones used by the NRA and the gun nuts.

So after 20 something pages of this you are saying that if someone who is present in a official capacity, un-uniformed and unidentifiable in anyway with training and a conceal carry permit, less children would be dead because once in awhile but not always he would brandish his weapon and take out the bad guy without any collateral damage?

That's what this boils down to? That's not much of stretch is it. Am I missing something in my summary?

I don't think anyone is saying that having an armed "friendly" on the scene is a fail-safe way to prevent slaughters like this, it would just improve the odds in a way that's likely to be very statistically significant. (BTW, I really don't like the idea of uniformed security guards because they are just target practice for a shooter like we had in Newtown.)

Here's how effective gun control would work, every house, outhouse, barn, tool shed, garage (etc., etc., etc.) would be searched, guns found and melted down. You need to get rid of the weapons. Gun laws concentrate on gun ownership, but you don't need to own a gun to use it in a crime. You just need to have it in your hands. A stolen or borrowed gun kills just as effectively as a gun one owns.

---Here's how effective gun control would work, every house, outhouse, barn, tool shed, garage (etc., etc., etc.) would be searched, guns found and melted down.---

It is obvious that these words are very carefully absent from the current public discussion, even though I would expect that this is what many people that think of gun control would want. It's the equivalent of the late term abortion discussion or the required ultrasound discussion when the real goal is to completely ban all abortions under all circumstances. I could live with a ban of all non-hunting weapons/target shooting weapons except for very extensively trained, background checked, psychologically checked, way beyond current conceal carry requirements qualified individuals. Take that 2nd Amendment. I would love to hear the response of the 'I only hunt and target shoot' crowd to that, as I am sure it would show some truth.

It could be done quite non-threateningly to the 2nd Amendment, prove ownership of the gun or its confiscated, the official song being song is its the illegal guns that are the problem not the abiding citizens.

Politically, the problem is, of course, that this would amount to the self-fulfilling prophecy if it is done in this administration since Obama would be 'coming to take your guns' after all.

As far as a concealed carry teacher changing the game statistically I think that the requirements would need to go far beyond what typically qualifies you for a concealed carry permit here in NY.

Here, you take an 8 hour course, most which advertise that the emphasis is on 'shooting on the move' or 'active shooting' which hardly qualifies for the under pressure situations that these scenarios would be.

If the qualifications for concealed carry included more extensive background checks, basic psychological evaluations such as those given to police, and extensive long term weapons training similar to what is given to the military or law enforcement, I may concede your point.

On the other hand simply having previous military training is not enough considering the high instance of PTSD, anger issues, and socialization issues, from returning military people, you don't really know where their head is at after all that they have experienced.

It could be done quite non-threateningly to the 2nd Amendment, prove ownership of the gun or its confiscated, the official song being song is its the illegal guns that are the problem not the abiding citizens.

How would the govt become AWARE of the existence of the weapon in the first place? Of course, after the bad guy's shoot-em-up, the government can step in and charge the suicidally-dead corpse with having a gun that is illegal.

On the other hand simply having previous military training is not enough considering the high instance of PTSD, anger issues, and socialization issues, from returning military people, you don't really know where their head is at after all that they have experienced.

I think a lot of people with PTSD would simply want to stay about as far from this sort of duty as they could get, but yes some sort of psychological evaluation for ex-military would seem to be called for.

I don't think that having stealth teachers/staffers with arms available on campus is a perfect solution. No solution that's perfect is also possible. And maybe the day will come when an armed teacher goes on a rampage, but I think that's less likely than the intruder/killer.

--How would the govt become AWARE of the existence of the weapon in the first place? Of course, after the bad guy's shoot-em-up, the government can step in and charge the suicidally-dead corpse with having a gun that is illegal.--

I like to think of it as 'retroactive licensing compliance' but others might call it illegal search and (if necessary) seizure.

If we had proper documentation and universal registration of all guns regardless of it being a commercial or private sale, if we made reporting the theft of a gun required, and the failure to report, a crime, then this conversation would be moot.

If we had proper documentation and universal registration of all guns regardless of it being a commercial or private sale, if we made reporting the theft of a gun required, and the failure to report, a crime, then this conversation would be moot.

And what about the people who don't obey the law? They exist, and thus there won't be anything "universal" about registration and people won't report lost guns for a variety of reasons, including that they don't know yet that they have been lost/stolen. What are we going to threaten them with? Ten years in a Federal penitentiary. They're already full to the brim with people caught with marijuana.

What about the people who don't obey any other law? You arrest them for violating the law.

If you have so many guns or are that careless with them, that you don't know how long its been lost or stolen, doesn't that tell you a lot about that person's casual attitude towards a lethal weapon?

The current occupancy of prisons does not make murder or any other current offense any less a crime. We'll just let them go, no room. Perhaps that will instigate a much needed prioritization of what warrants a confineable offense in the US.

I don't go more than a few days without knowing my keys or a credit card has been misplaced, but it might take a me a few months or more to figure out the weapon that is so important to my safety, and my 2nd amendment rights has gone missing?

That's sounds worthy of a criminal investigation to me, and defines what I consider to be 'responsible gun ownership'. This argument gives all those law biding citizen gun owners I hear so much about a bad name.